Bruce Springsteen is a fantastic musician. But he should stick to music rather than interviews in which he offers social commentary. Take Springsteen’s Rolling Stone interview with Jon Stewart, in which Springsteen complains about the level of greed at the top of the financial industry, lavishes praise on the Occupy Wall Street movement, and laments income inequality in America. “You cannot have a social contract with the enormous income disparity — you’re going to slice the country down the middle. It’s not going to hold.”
Perhaps the first thing to point out is that Springsteen’s estimated to be worth $200 million, meaning The Boss is doing more than his fair share to contribute to income inequality in America. (He probably ranks in the top 100th of the top one percent.)
As for the substantive issues surrounding income inequality, I agree with Springsteen that wide disparities in income and living standards can pose a danger to our social well-being. But the issue is far more complicated than he acknowledges. A National Affairs essay I co-authored points out that (a) income taxes in America are the most progressive among the rich nations in the world; (b) inequality is driven in part by the growing work-force participation rate of women; (c) federal old-age entitlement programs have become less progressive (which argues for means-testing Social Security and Medicare, a policy that is fiercely rejected by liberals); and (d) one of the quickest ways to increased income equality is a severe recession (since severe recessions destroy capital, which hurts top income earners more than average workers).
Another factor has contributed to income inequality. In their book The Winner-Take-All Society, economists Robert Frank and Philip Cook argue that certain markets are defined by the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few top performers. The winner-take-all model has come to dominate a number of professional sectors, including sports, art, acting, and … music.
Oh, and one other thing. In his interview with Stewart, Springsteen laments the fact that “nuanced political dialogue or creative expression seems like it’s been hamstrung by the decay of political speech and it’s infantilized our national discourse.” This lamentation comes from a fellow who in 2003 told a crowd at Fed Ex field, “It’s time to impeach the president [George W. Bush]” and in a 2007 Rolling Stone interview, when asked how the Bush years would be remembered, answered,
Many parts will be remembered with the same degree of shame as the Japanese internment camps are remembered — illegal wiretapping, rendition, the abuse of prisoners, cutting back our civil rights, no habeas corpus. I don’t think most people thought they’d ever see the country move far enough to the right to see those things happen here. And I don’t believe those are things that strengthen us. The moral authority to stand up and say, ‘We are the Americans,” is invaluable. It’s been deeply damaged, and it’s going to take quite a while to repair that damage, if we can. This will be remembered as a low point in American history — as simple as that.
People are going to go, “Was everybody sleeping?” But people get frightened, they get crazy. You wonder where political hysteria can take you–I think we’ve tasted some of that.
All I want to do is be one of the guys that says, “When that stuff was going down, I threw my hat in the ring and tried to stand on what I felt was the right side of history.” What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock & roll band?
Yes indeed. What can a $200 million poor boy from New Jersey do in the face of impeachable offenses, Japanese-style internment camp shame, no habeas corpus, a low point in American history, and of course the loss of nuanced political dialogue? And what’s he supposed to do when the politician he backed to the hilt (Barack Obama) becomes president and continues many of the policies he denounced, as well as increasing drone strikes that kill innocent people and justifying the targeted killing of American citizens overseas?
I understand that there is a mythology that has grown up around Springsteen; to many of his fans he’s a Voice of Conscience and a musician whom we should take very, very seriously. It’s just that sometimes the jarring contradictions in Springsteen — the fantastically rich rock star bemoaning income inequality while presenting himself as just a blue-collar rock-and-roller from Jersey; the man who longs for nuanced political discourse while reciting shallow left-wing talking points — makes you want to look hard and look twice and wonder if it’s all just a brilliant disguise.
There's a lot of poor people in New Jersey who could benefit from Springsteen's largesse. Let him put his money where his voice is.
Bruce is not the most technically gifted singer, and like most of his contemporaries (Dylan, Neil Young) , his greatest talent has been songwriting , live performance, and crafting a persona with whom one can choose to identify with, or not. Bruce has clearly read widely among left-wing literature and journals, and over the years has become quite good at spouting the talking points he has learned, and how they apply to his work. What he hasn't seemed to grasp is that he has allowed himself to be incarcerated in his own politically-correct prison where his guards are influential rock critics and left-leaning media journalists, who when they review Springsteen's albums(always enthusiastically), seem to really be reviewing his politics. If he were ever to have an original-for him-political thought, or ever write a song that could be mistaken as pulling for a conservative idea, they would abandon him. In other words, he doesn't realize he's being used as a mouthpiece for left-wing views. He probably doesn't even see the irony of of being a "rich man in a poor man's shirt", as he once so memorably put it in one of his songs, simply because he wasn't born into it. Dylan realized this in 1963 when he stopped writing protest songs. But they still insist on calling him "the spokesman for his generation" which as stupid as that is, will be in the first paragraph of his obituary. Dylan always did irony and nuance. Bruce never did.
And Dylan also knows his roots music. Not everyone's cup of tea but no act.
Maybe it's age, but Springsteen's music doesn't sit well with me anymore. nHis bellows at the end of JungleLand really detract from an otherwise great song. nMaybe I'm not as sophisticate as I once was. nI like your observation about Dylan, but he did write at least one post 1963 protest song – Hurricane. I guess that's the point, it was no longer the main focus of his songwriting. n
My opinion of Alice Cooper has just gone up immensely.
I'd make a different point. I mean no criticism of Wehner by this, but why do we care about Springsteen's opinions about anything outside his expertise? Is he especially learned on what he pontificates about? I doubt it. n nWhy not write a piece on my butcher's views or mine for that matter? No one should because I have no special purchase on these subjects, nor does my butcher, that make them worthy of prominent placement or comment.. n nObviously, it's Sprinsteen's celebrity that is the springboard for the diisemination of his not-any more-interesting-than-anyone-else's views on matters about which he has no special insight or competence. n nMy view is that no prominece should be accorded to such spoutings whose fake "legitimacy" comes only from celebrity.
Why care? Because to the ignorant he is a god and role model.
But, of course, Springsteen is right on the substance isn't he? Inequality has been growing to a dangerous level and the Bush tax cuts to top brackets, capital gains and inheritance taxes ended up raising the price of trophy ranches in Montana while the country is going broke. Would make quite a lot of sense to put in a carbon tax and higher taxes on the wealthy. We aren't short of capital–recurrent bubbles show that too much money is looking for too little demand. Redistribution (say through education and medical care) would help our economy in the long run and even the upper brackets. Who is richer, the richest guy in America or the richest guy in a banana republic? We are headed towards banana republic.
Actually, no. Bruce is about 180 degrees wrong on the substance. n"Bush tax cuts to top brackets?" Huh? nThe Bush tax cuts to the highest income levels to which they applied were at best around 9 or 10 %. The Bush tax cuts to the lowest income levels were 90 to 100%. Yes 100%. Some lower income taxpayers were actually turned into tax NON-payers thanks to the Bush tax cuts. nAs far back as 1980, Springsteen was campaigning AGAINST American energy independence with his involvement in the M.U.S.E. no-nukes campaign. nIt's sad that Bruce's legendary anti-American rant "Born in the USA" has become such a favorite among patriotic folks who don't even listen to the lyrics. nSpringsteen has become a multimillionaire through his musical talent and personal charisma, not through any financial expertise. nHis economic wisdom is no different from that of someone who just happened to buy a winning lottery ticket. He's rich and successful and congratulations for that. He has earned it by entertaining people, not by providing any insight into money or the economy. n n
Springsteen has nothing to do with farming?He certainly spreads enough manure around.
Somehow i think that if Springsteen were spouting Republican dogma, you'd all be singing along. i'm a centrist Independent voter, and have been for years. It troubles me to come here, or conversely to visit a largely left-wing publication and find that it's 98% one point of view. If you only ever listen to the same perspective, how will your minds stay open? And there's always one brave person who has an alternative point of view, in this case "Joe Shmoe," and you all diss his opinion just because it doesn't jive with yours. Where is the dialogue? How will this country ever heal if you won't listen to other voices.
NO one-certainly not me–is denying that Springsteen has earned his millions honestly. And it's well known that he is generous in supporting the causes that he agrees with. It's also well worth noting that Springsteen CHOOSES which causes to support. No one forces him to give money to causes, or ideas with which he disagrees. No one is confiscating his money and giving it to someone else. I think some of the posters you may be referring to though are tired of being told by a talented and rich ( beyond measure ) rock superstar that the American Dream–of which his own career is living proof–is a myth. They don't want to be preached to by someone who will pull down in a few night's work (and he does work hard) what they may not earn in a lifetime of overtaxed wages or salary. It could also be that they don't appreciate that someone's talent as a songwriter and performer entitles them to a bigger platform than they have to opine on subjects that are not his expertise, or that more weight should be given to his political utterances as opposed to theirs, based on his fame.
I would love to see his tax returns and see how much charity he has really given and to whom? n nPete is correct when he calls out Bruce for complaining about the infantilzing of political discourse when he himself engaged in the same during the Bush administration. I believe that was his main point.